Friday, September 15, 2006

One and the Same?

In an era of Michael Barrett and Ward Churchill, LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks identifies the biggest threat to the academy as the efforts of those who support an academic bill of rights.

A couple of things are remarkable about the piece. For one, Professor Brooks just can't understand how the bill's proponents could support ideological diversity without favoring affirmative action based on race and sex. To the rest of us, one would assume the difference is clear: The former distinguishes among people on the basis of what they think (the matter that, it would seem, is most central to the university's mission); the latter, on the basis of immutable characteristics of skin color and biology.

Finally, Brooks winds up with this pithy little paragraph:

Silly me, getting my militant conservative Islamic extremists mixed up with my militant conservative Judeo-Christian extremists! Though now that I think about it, they seem to have an awful lot in common.

Her equation of terrorists to those who disagree with her on the need for an academic bill of rights is amazing. And like the comments emanating from the unfortunate Rosie O'Donnell last week, it highlights the left's total and utter lack of seriousness when it comes either to understanding or combatting Islaofascist terror. To them, all the people they "don't like" are essentially one and the same.

2 Comments:

While I find the attitudes of the Ward Churchill's of the world massively offensive, as a College Prof. I fear any legislation that can be misused to close minds.

There is a delightful, quite liberal, Poli Sci Prof on campus who forces students to think. I disagree with 99.9% of her opinions, however I value her place on the faculty. She made the list of the 100 worst Prof's.

When my kids were growing up, our dinner table was a debating society. I encouraqged my children to look at all sides of the issue and think it through. I encourage my students to disagree with me.